|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
From what I read in your comment, it sounds like they are allowing the patenting
of the new *process*, but not the *computer program*. While it is true that
lawyers might try to argue that the program is defining the process, I think
this new law is supposed to preclude such patents on computer programs.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mschmitz on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
Quoting from the explanatory note:
[begin quote]
Rather than excluding a computer program from being a patentable invention, new
clause 10A clarifies that a computer program is not an invention nor a manner of
manufacture for the purposes of the Bill (and that this prevents anything from
being an invention or manner of manufacture only to the extent that a patent or
an application relates to a computer program as such). This approach is
considered to be more consistent with New Zealand's international obligations
(the TRIPS agreement, in particular, contains restrictions on the ability to
exclude inventions from patentability). This approach is also more consistent
with English precedent and makes it clear that where the actual contribution of
an invention lies solely in it being a computer program, it is ineligible for
patent protection.
[end quote]
it appears evident that only standalone computer programs are refused patent
protection. Processes that incorporate computer programs in combination with
some hardware being controlled by the program still enjoy patent protection. The
deference to TRIPS speaks volumes in its own right - we appear to aim at the
high standards set by the US patent office (irony intended).
I'm sure the Hon. Craig Foss means well, but I also suspect he will be aware
that the wording of the Act can be twisted to allow pretty much anything (after
all, the program from the non-qualifying example will have to talk to some
hardware to make anything happen in the physical world - be it a printer, an
ethernet card, or whatever. Should be large enough of a loophole for a skilled
patent lawyer to drive a bulldozer through).
Plausible deniability seems the most important issue in NZ politics these days.
(On the examples - puhleaze! All he could come up with was a washing machine?
And the famous F&P washing machines aren't even manufactured in NZ anymore
...)
I would have expected better from 'my' government.
-- mschmitz
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
